| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Defaulting wal_sync_method to fdatasync on Linux for 9.1? |
| Date: | 2010-11-08 02:35:46 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTinZ6Vw58v9_7tSPox-f1nmCyV1K4XOxuaJiDkgo@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 01:35, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Yes; it's supposed to, and that logic works fine on some other platforms.
No, the logic was broken to begin with. Linux technically supported
O_DSYNC all along. PostgreSQL used fdatasync as the default. Now,
because Linux added proper O_SYNC support, PostgreSQL suddenly prefers
O_DSYNC over fdatasync?
> Until you've
> quantified which of the cases do that--which is required for reliable
> operation of PostgreSQL--and which don't, you don't have any data that can
> be used to draw a conclusion from. If some setups are faster because they
> write less reliably, that doesn't automatically make them the better choice.
I don't see your point. If fdatasync worked on Linux, AS THE DEFAULT,
all the time until recently, then how does it all of a sudden need
proof NOW?
If anything, the new open_datasync should be scrutinized because it
WASN'T the default before and it hasn't gotten as much testing on
Linux.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Cédric Villemain | 2010-11-08 03:03:37 | Re: questions regarding shared_buffers behavior |
| Previous Message | Mark Rostron | 2010-11-08 00:33:37 | Re: questions regarding shared_buffers behavior |